DescentBB

I found this in Yahoo News. Fun stuff I would be interested to hear Bold Deceiver's take on this.

By Sandra LoweThu Jun 30, 6:35 AM ET
The Defense Department has crossed the privacy line. At your local high school, buried under emergency cards and red tape, is a little-known requirement. Under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, unless school districts want to lose much-needed federal funds, they must release student data to military recruiters.

They must also allow parents to opt out. Many parents don't know they can ask to get their children off recruiters' lists. That's an issue, but recent Pentagon revelations expose a more disturbing problem.

The opt-out clause was meant to give parents a choice that preserves family privacy. But they didn't tell us, opt out or not, the Defense Department is tracking your kid and my kid with a separate, privately purchased database, and we have no choice. Even if we opt our children out through our local school district, all their information remains on the Department of Defense's mega-database without our consent.

The sanctity of our families is now secondary to the marketing of our children.

If we're in a Do Not Call Registry, it won't matter. We can opt out on the NCLB form, and it won't matter. We can send our children to private or public school, they can be 18 or 16, girls or boys, and it won't matter. According to the Defense Department, they need to do this and, yes, they forgot to tell us that they've been doing it since 2002.

There's no excuse for violating the privacy of children. There's no governmental purpose to collecting their grades, much less their races. There's no legitimate reason to ignore the rights of parents to restrict strangers from contacting their children. There's no way to justify a wholesale database of likely targets from a pool of minors.

Our military can and must fulfill recruitment needs while preserving our family privacy. It is not an either-or proposition. Concerned parents can go to the Web site www.leavemychildalone.org to learn how to opt their children out of the Pentagon's databank. We can contact our lawmakers and urge them stop this dangerous violation of our privacy rights. We must change this policy, or No Child Left Behind will really mean, "Hey kid, we got your number."

Sandra Lowe is a mother of four and a school board trustee in Sonoma, Calif.

*trolling removed*

Worried about the draft? Credibility--;

*trolling removed*

um, for RECRUITING possibly?

"Sleeper", huh? Nice jab, Dr. Paranoia. Yes, let's turn this into a contest of who can come up with the most clever name to describe what they think is wrong with the other person... that would be brilliant.

---

The armed forces have absolutely no interest in having people there who don't want to be there. Drafted fighters simply don't perform as well as volunteers, by a huge margin.

Why would they create a big database of names, studies, GPA's, etc? Same reason advertisers want to create a big database of everything you've ever done on the internet, or why Safeway wants to log your purchases on their club card, or why the car salesman wants to know what your interests are. Targetted marketing. If you know your audience, you can focus your energy on making the pitch to the right people in the right way.

When they spot your kid with the interest and the skills they need, they won't send him a "get your *** out here to the base" letter... they'll send him a recruiter who'll talk him up about that specific field and those specific skills and how great the army training in that field is. That's much more likely to get the kid's attention than sending him a generic recruiter who doesn't know jack about the field the kid likes.

Now, I'd prefer if the army could only get that info if I sent it to them -- after all, colleges can only get that info if I send it to them, and employers can only get that info if I send it to them. But I don't think they have anything more nefarious in mind than anybody else -- they just want to use the info to focus their energy on those who are most interested, and to make their sales pitch more effective.

There's no need to make it any more complicated than that.

In my experience, it's a pretty sure bet that anyone who includes "Wake up America!" or some other variation of it in their arguments is a buffoon. It's the last phrase you want to use unless a lot of eye rolling and dismissal as a kook is your objective.

As to the topic, does anyone else find it strange that federal funds should be expected with absolutely zero reciprocity? If you don't want your child's information making its way into the hands of America's military, perhaps you should look into private school.

Pebkac wrote:In my experience, it's a pretty sure bet that anyone who includes "Wake up America!" or some other variation of it in their arguments is a buffoon. It's the last phrase you want to use unless a lot of eye rolling and dismissal as a kook is your objective.

As to the topic, does anyone else find it strange that federal funds should be expected with absolutely zero reciprocity? If you don't want your child's information making its way into the hands of America's military, perhaps you should look into private school.

of course, there's no buffoonery in failing to read the OP before commenting

The first paragraph was for another poster and is correct. And yes, there is no buffoonery in skimming.

I plead guilty to skimming the article and heading straight for the link, which suggests that NCLB is the bee in their bonnet. I just find it nutso that we demand federal funds to operate our schools and then cry foul when a federal agency comes calling for a return on investment. The private school comment stands, only because I don't consider any school receiving any federal funds to be private. Send your child to a school which operates completely on its own and you're good. In any other situation, the government is completely within its rights to ask certain things in return for the funds.

At the end of the day, military service is voluntary and the services don't need to gather information for a secret draft because Selective Service takes care of that for them. Do males still have to register at 18 or was that stopped? What is the real concern here?

By Sandra LoweThu Jun 30, 6:35 AM ET
If we're in a Do Not Call Registry, it won't matter. We can opt out on the NCLB form, and it won't matter. We can send our children to private or public school, they can be 18 or 16, girls or boys, and it won't matter. According to the Defense Department, they need to do this and, yes, they forgot to tell us that they've been doing it since 2002.

edit: i don't know the details of how it works. maybe some types of schools are exempt.

So how is the military any different than the colleges arounf the country. I bet there were at least 50 universities trying to get my daughter to attend. Should the military just blindly take whomever the lotto ball spits up?

"The armed forces have absolutely no interest in having people there who don't want to be there. Drafted fighters simply don't perform as well as volunteers, by a huge margin. " Lothar

Not true. In vietnam, with the right leadership, the draftee's performed just as well as the enlistee's. After all all, once you are in if you want to survive you had better learn the program and function accordingly.

The Selective Service system is still in place, Pebkac. In fact, I believe that males 18 and older must have signed up in order to be allowed to register to vote. I don't have any problem with this in principle, but I would like to see it extended to the other gender, as well. That's for another topic, though.

i don't know the details of how it works. maybe some types of schools are exempt.

From your link's FAQ:

Are private schools subject to the military recruiter requirements?

Private secondary schools that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are subject to this requirement. However, private schools that maintain a religious objection to military service are not required to comply with this law. Thus, applicability of these requirements will vary based on each private school's situation. If you have any questions about the applicability of these requirements to your particular school, please contact your school administration directly.

That leads me to believe that no federal funds = no required turnover of information.

Selective service is still all males 18-25. The military does not want draftees!! If you get to the point you are using them you are behind the power curve. If recruiting quotas are kept up then there is time to train the recruits on job skills and combat tactics.

Not some rush to get em through and to the lines. Yes if in a corner I am sure a draftee would fight well anybody would. The training and tactics are in place to try and ensure that those corners are not seen often. Leadership is key yes. Its so much easier to lead well trained troops then those who do not want to be there.

Training and technology is everything. I "alomost" feel sorry for those people over there when we have the situation to bring both those to bear. In the current S$%^ throw thow things don't always work out that way.

what are you guys talking about with this "it's a return investment" stuff?

are you implying that your government would rather you joined the military than be a civilian productive member of society?
talk about a militaristic culture. sheesh.

the military does not run your public schools. you owe them nothing for your education. don't get mixed up - it's the GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM at the top of the ladder - they are what you owe your education for, not the military. a sane government would rather it's citizens contribute to society. a government that thinks military service is more important is extremist.

what are you guys talking about with this "it's a return investment" stuff?

Simple. If the federal government is providing subsidies for the operation of your enterprise, you really have no room to complain when they ask you for something in return.

are you implying that your government would rather you joined the military than be a civilian productive member of society?

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion, but no, that is not what I was implying.

the military does not run your public schools. you owe them nothing for your education. don't get mixed up - it's the GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM at the top of the ladder - they are what you owe your education for, not the military.

The Department of Defense IS a part of the GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM and, like just about every other department, will recruit from schools and colleges. This will of course be authorized and endorsed by the folks at the top of the ladder.

a sane government would rather it's citizens contribute to society. a government that thinks military service is more important is extremist.

I didn't realize that one can't contribute to society AND serve in the military. Why do you feel that they are mutually exclusive?

Pebkac wrote:

what are you guys talking about with this "it's a return investment" stuff?

Simple. If the federal government is providing subsidies for the operation of your enterprise, you really have no room to complain when they ask you for something in return.

ok then, if private records are now considered the bread and butter of this day and age then who am i to argue.
lets pull the records (to keep it even - all records since 2002, and without knowledge of course) for all the employees of Boeing, GM and all the other psudeo-private (and government funded like WOA!) military corporations. these records can be given to universitys so they can properly target these people - trying to coerse them to become lecturers or researchers at the university.
if the education department needs to pay it's dues, then the defence department needs to pay it's dues too.

are you implying that your government would rather you joined the military than be a civilian productive member of society?

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion, but no, that is not what I was implying.

the military does not run your public schools. you owe them nothing for your education. don't get mixed up - it's the GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM at the top of the ladder - they are what you owe your education for, not the military.

The Department of Defense IS a part of the GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM and, like just about every other department, will recruit from schools and colleges. This will of course be authorized and endorsed by the folks at the top of the ladder.

the education department is also a part of the governmental system (i hope... oh god). as such it is on somewhat equal footing with the defence department, them both being federal departments. it does not answer TO the defence department. only in a police state does every department answer to the defence department.

i think this issue shows that in america the defence department is obviously at the top of the ladder, i think this is bad form. WHY does the defence department need to be on the top of the ladder? why not take it's proper place amongst the other departments?

how about the army be forced to release all of it's soldier's records to the education department (the info then passed onto universitys) - so that the education of these soldiers can be properly targeted.
see... that probably seems silly to most of you. the education department being on top of the ladder, it's a real "wtf has the world gone topsy turvy?" moment.
and yet here we have the defence department on the top - and all is assumed to be well.

as i said... militaristic culture.
i can even accuse it of being a police state already.
not the mention how your CIA doesn't seem to know howto sit still. but then why would it, it loves the view from the top.
your government is now so used to being run by the military and the CIA that it doesn't know howto do it otherwise. it's intrenched. it doesn't even know anymore howto run a country without a ★■◆●ing war going on on the sidelines to justify the non-stop propeganda techniques you learned from the nazis during WW2!

*pant pant pant*
conspiracy ranting... the exercise routine of champions heh

a sane government would rather it's citizens contribute to society. a government that thinks military service is more important is extremist.

I didn't realize that one can't contribute to society AND serve in the military. Why do you feel that they are mutually exclusive?

sorry it's the whole "war is stupid" thing that those damned intellectuals, with their crazy history books, sometimes talk about. i was implying the greater picture of life how on one side of the scale you have enlightened civilisation - and on the other side you have warlike cavemen.
to encourage one is to discourage the other.

Dedman wrote:I found this in Yahoo News. Fun stuff I would be interested to hear Bold Deceiver's take on this.

I'm flattered you would like my take on this (though I'm not sure why).

I agree with Pebkac, who has covered the bases quite well.

On the other hand, I find Roid's "rant" difficult to follow. If I understand Roid correctly, he objects to the government collecting information that might later be used to determine, at least as to males, compliance with the Military Selective Service Act, which requires young men of a certain age to sign up for selective service. The website author appears to object to military recruitment contact with any potential candidate who is a minor, of any gender.

Roid contends that if the Department of Defense is permitted to gain information in this way, then the Department of Education should also be permitted to gain access to information procured by the Department of Defense.

Roid fundamentally misunderstands the nature of American government. Departments do not pass laws. The Congress passes laws. They are elected by the people of this country for that purpose. The notion that the Department of Education should be entitled to some kind reciprocal benefit of information from the DOD, therefore, is untenable on its face. Congress makes such decisions, not Departments or disgruntled individuals.

As Pebkac correctly notes, the federal government is under no obligation to provide educational funding to the states. When it does so, it is entirely permissible (and oftentimes appropriate) to impose conditions on such funding. For instance, during the Carter Administration, there was great concern about a shortage of fossil fuels. Congress passed a law denying highway funds to states that refused to lower their speed limits to maximum of 55 MPH.

Here, it is unclear, specifically, what kind of information is being collected about these students. The person authoring the website only refers to it as "private contact information", which I take to mean the minor's address. The author's main objection seems to be permitting the government to contact his or her minor child, presumably regarding a career in military service, without parental consent.

The author assumes that a minor's "private contact information" (name and address?) is private. This is questionable, but let's assume that's true. The next question is whether the military actually initiates direct contact with minor children based on the use of this information, and then -- whether that's wrong.

The first question isn't addressed anywhere that I can see on my scan of the website.

The answer to second question, whether it would be wrong to do so, is no. The military can't sign up anyone until they reach the age of majority. Until then, I can't see the harm in, say, sending literature to high school seniors about the military. On the other hand, I might be more concerned if a military recruiter was aggressively and covertly initiating personal contact (telephone calls, surreptitious meetings) with targeted individuals who were, say, 14 or 15 -- with a view toward getting that child's enlistment contract signed on his or her 18th birthday -- without his parents knowing it. But I see no evidence of that.

Roid's motion to initiate and maintain wild-eyed conspiracy theories is therefore DENIED.

Pebkac is entitled to COSTS for defending against illogical gibberish, payable in thirty-days after approval of Pebkac's cost bill.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BD

Poo, I was hoping roid would be remanded to the State Penitentiary for the Criminally Narcissistic.

hrmm.. this all smacks of "The Last Starfighter".

...it could happen.....

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Dedman wrote:I found this in Yahoo News. Fun stuff I would be interested to hear Bold Deceiver's take on this.

I'm flattered you would like my take on this (though I'm not sure why).

I agree with Pebkac, who has covered the bases quite well.

On the other hand, I find Roid's "rant" difficult to follow. If I understand Roid correctly, he objects to the government collecting information that might later be used to determine, at least as to males, compliance with the Military Selective Service Act, which requires young men of a certain age to sign up for selective service. The website author appears to object to military recruitment contact with any potential candidate who is a minor, of any gender.

Roid contends that if the Department of Defense is permitted to gain information in this way, then the Department of Education should also be permitted to gain access to information procured by the Department of Defense.

Roid fundamentally misunderstands the nature of American government. Departments do not pass laws. The Congress passes laws. They are elected by the people of this country for that purpose. The notion that the Department of Education should be entitled to some kind reciprocal benefit of information from the DOD, therefore, is untenable on its face. Congress makes such decisions, not Departments or disgruntled individuals.

ellected by "the people".. yeah i guess i can let you get away with saying that. but they are certainly not REPRESENTATIVE of the people - which is what the whole "ellected by the people" thing is theoretically supposed to guarentee. you know very well that they are only there because interest groups payed for their election campaign - the same interest groups that the congressmen consistently vote in favour of.

the most politically powerful governmental departments are always the ones that are tied to pseudo-private/pseudo-gov-funded companys. simply because these companys effect the desisions governing their own handouts - via their election-campaign-cash via special interest groups custom making the congress to how they see fit.

the military companys are joined at the hip with the military government departments. the 2 together DO make the laws - but i guess you could say it's the companys with the real power -> since they (not the DOD) control the campaign cash to pay for the congress (and therefore DOD) they want.

summary point: congress is not under your control. to find the top - follow the money.

As Pebkac correctly notes, the federal government is under no obligation to provide educational funding to the states. When it does so, it is entirely permissible (and oftentimes appropriate) to impose conditions on such funding. For instance, during the Carter Administration, there was great concern about a shortage of fossil fuels. Congress passed a law denying highway funds to states that refused to lower their speed limits to maximum of 55 MPH.

Here, it is unclear, specifically, what kind of information is being collected about these students. The person authoring the website only refers to it as "private contact information", which I take to mean the minor's address. The author's main objection seems to be permitting the government to contact his or her minor child, presumably regarding a career in military service, without parental consent.

Skyalmian quoted where they are currently planning on going with this - "personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects the students are studying". to better target people to join the military.

The author assumes that a minor's "private contact information" (name and address?) is private. This is questionable, but let's assume that's true. The next question is whether the military actually initiates direct contact with minor children based on the use of this information, and then -- whether that's wrong.

The first question isn't addressed anywhere that I can see on my scan of the website.

The answer to second question, whether it would be wrong to do so, is no. The military can't sign up anyone until they reach the age of majority. Until then, I can't see the harm in, say, sending literature to high school seniors about the military. On the other hand, I might be more concerned if a military recruiter was aggressively and covertly initiating personal contact (telephone calls, surreptitious meetings) with targeted individuals who were, say, 14 or 15 -- with a view toward getting that child's enlistment contract signed on his or her 18th birthday -- without his parents knowing it. But I see no evidence of that.

Roid's motion to initiate and maintain wild-eyed conspiracy theories is therefore DENIED.

Pebkac is entitled to COSTS for defending against illogical gibberish, payable in thirty-days after approval of Pebkac's cost bill.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BD

for the record, i don't think this has anything to do with a draft.
we've already talked at length here on the DBB about how campaign contribution laws need to be overhauled so democracy can get back to it's roots.
i just think that people need to wake up to who's really in control. when a military-special-interest group controls (via campaign contibution) it's own budget (via DOD), and influences policy to an extent that it encourages war - therefore perpetuating it's own cycle.

you guys may truly have a militaristic culture, but i think it's more influenced by (or otherwise encouraged by) big business.

the issues put forward in this thread exemplify the self-purpetuating problem you create for yourselves by letting this all go on: an outwardly aggressive militaristic culture perpetuated by the outof control (and now culturally ENTRENCHED) military industry.

the military wants to know all about your kids? you don't care. good on em, you'd love your kids to join the army.
what i find shocking is that you can't think of it any other way. it's just how it's always been.

it doesn't have to be that way.

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Dedman wrote:I found this in Yahoo News. Fun stuff I would be interested to hear Bold Deceiver's take on this.

I'm flattered you would like my take on this (though I'm not sure why).

Mostly cause you're a lawyer and actually know what you are talking about when speaking about these things.

Whoopty fu(king doo... So a recruiter has your child's number and information. All the kids gotta say is "I'm not interested" and hang up.

It's not THAT big of a deal.

Besides, it's not like that information isn't public record to begin with. And if it's not while they're minors, it will be eventually.

ironcly StingRay is in the armed services

you know:

"defending our freedom"

supposedly

Sting_Ray wrote:Whoopty fu(king doo... So a recruiter has your child's number and information. All the kids gotta say is "I'm not interested" and hang up.

It's not THAT big of a deal.

Besides, it's not like that information isn't public record to begin with. And if it's not while they're minors, it will be eventually.

The interesting thing is, the government does alot of things like this completely in the dark behind peoples backs so this doesnt really surprise me...

bunch of pinko wankers

I for one agree with the government knowing about kids and $hit... Personally, if you see the calibur of individuals I work with on a daily basis you'd understand why I think this way. I wish there would be higher standards, and I wish the government would start calling only people with POTENTIAL.

90% of the casualties right now are because of the ineptitude of the people in the armed forces. Callous, rash actions cost lives in combat... disregard of authority. Unfortunately, that's the main constituency of the people in my platoon/company/batallion/brigade/division/military.

It's not a bad thing that the military knows information about your kid. If your kid is worth it to the armed forces, he might end up doing great things for the country, while the people that go in on a whim get us killed.

Think about it.

Sting_Ray wrote:I for one agree with the government knowing about kids and $hit... Personally, if you see the calibur of individuals I work with on a daily basis you'd understand why I think this way. I wish there would be higher standards, and I wish the government would start calling only people with POTENTIAL.

90% of the casualties right now are because of the ineptitude of the people in the armed forces. Callous, rash actions cost lives in combat... disregard of authority. Unfortunately, that's the main constituency of the people in my platoon/company/batallion/brigade/division/military.

It's not a bad thing that the military knows information about your kid. If your kid is worth it to the armed forces, he might end up doing great things for the country, while the people that go in on a whim get us killed.

Think about it.

While that idealism is honorable it would at very least be notable of the government to notify the selected individuals about having their information logged so they know ahead of time.....

roid wrote:ummary point: congress is not under your control. to find the top - follow the money.

Ah. So if I follow your thinking, you believe that the war in Iraq is the product of governmental manipulation by private groups (say, Halliburton) bent on generating profits for itself. And when the Congress voted overwhelmingly to support the invasion of Iraq in October of 2002, they did so because they were paid to do so by quasi-governmental wolves poorly-attired in the sheep cloth of private industry.

Hmmmmmm... That tin-foil hat might be a little tight.

roid wrote:the military wants to know all about your kids? you don't care. good on em, you'd love your kids to join the army.

what i find shocking is that you can't think of it any other way. it's just how it's always been.

it doesn't have to be that way.

Yes, our military has always been. And yes, many parents in this country are very proud that their sons and daughters choose to serve their country by joining the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. My father served, my brother served, and my father-in-law can tell you stories about killing Japanese in the South Pacific in World War II. I am grateful to each of them, and to everyone who wears the uniform in defense of our country.

Without the U.S. military and presence, I daresay there are more than just a few other countries out there who wouldn't be quite so casual about diverting their own governmental resources from security, and into more popular "interests".

But the truth is, Roid, this isn't some John Lennon song we're all living here. This is a world that has bad people in it. For example, some of these people would very much like to saw your head off, and the heads of your wives and children, in a most brutal way, notwithstanding your apparent disdain for military groups in general and the "gubbamint". So if our government is interested in promoting its military to eligible American candidates, I couldn't be more pleased. We're all big boys and girls here.

You should thank your lucky stars for it, but you won't. We're fine with that, too.

BD

*trolling removed*

Well, Sky, that's a formidably childish and uninformed view of the way the way the U.S. Government operates. You have a few hurdles to deal with, if you really want to make your thesis on it. The first and most obvious is that people vote; not special interests.

Now, you can take the elitist view that people are simply too stupid to understand for what or for whom they are actually voting. That would dovetail nicely with your theory that The People are powerless when it comes to their elected representatives -- which is actually a self-contradicting sentence. If that's your view, there won't be much I can say to dissuade you.

With regard to your cryptic reference to "137 years ago" and blacked-out text following your post, I can only respond that obscurity is the refuge of the incompetent. If you wish to make a point, you'll need to do your own work in that regard.

Then maybe you can play with the big boys.

BD

Bold Deciever. do you believe that election campaigns effect votes?
if so... by how much?
also if so... do you believe the effect on votes is directly proportional to the amount of money spent on the election campaign?

*trolling removed*

roid wrote:Bold Deciever. do you believe that election campaigns effect votes?

I believe that free speech affects votes.

roid wrote:if so... by how much?

Depends on the voter.

roid wrote:also if so... do you believe the effect on votes is directly proportional to the amount of money spent on the election campaign?

I don't know what "directly proportional" means. I'll try to answer you.

If you are asking the question, whether a citizen or group of citizens may affect the outcome of elections by providing campaign monies to his or her candidate of choice, the answer is yes. Those funds are used to disseminate the message. If there is quality to the message, the candidate will receive votes (or the opponent will lose votes). And to the extent that same quality message is left unrebutted by the opponent, the loudest candidate may receive more votes.

Former Senator Tom Daschle (D) was, for a time, a very popular Senator among his constituents in South Dakota. He was the Senate majority leader until the Democrats started taking losses in 2002 sufficient to lose the majority, and so he became minority leader in 2003. Daschle was widely reviled among republicans as an obstructionist, and a good one. In 2004, a national grassroots effort blew him out of office, and he was replaced by Senator John Thune (R). This was due in large part to republicans getting the message out to South Dakotans that Tom Daschle was a poor choice for Senator. The message resonated generally, which is why it drew fiscal support from republicans who did not even reside in South Dakota. That, and it added a seat to the Senate on the republican side, which was beneficial to republicans. I think in that case Daschle was outspent, and he lost.

No one denies that money plays a critical part in politics. But it is only a part. As a candidate, I could not run on a platform that America, for instance, should expand its military that we might attack and take Australia, and make it the fifty-first state of the Union. This is so, because first of all Americans like Australians; and second, we're not an imperialist nation. It wouldn't matter how much money "corporations" with military contracts poured into my campaign trove. That ship still would not sail.

It's incorrect to assume that because someone makes a political contribution to a candidate, that candidate is "in their pocket". There are exceptions to the rule, I'm not naive about that. But generally speaking, people and special interest groups make political contributions so that the candidate most closely espousing their own views will win. And when it comes down to it, it is the people who vote. Every single time. If you don't trust the people, then your problem is with democracy. That's a different conversation.

You mentioned earlier the DBB had hosted lengthy discussions about campaign finance reform. For what it's worth, my view is that unpalatable political views should be met with speech decrying it. By extension, I also believe it is dead wrong to to try and curb contributions to political campaigns. I am aligned with the ACLU on this one, when they state: "The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution. "

BD

Skyalmian wrote:Q: What are they? A. Every last one of those links is related to the greatest atrocity in United States history, the 14th Amendment of 1868. You, I (but not for long), and everyone else has dual citizenship . . . .

(Snip Unintelligible Gibberish)

Well Sky, the gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train just aint' a' coming, my friend.

I should have figured you out immediately when you said you mourned the loss of the "gold standard". I don't have time to read all of your fascinating links, but I did look at the website you linked as most especially this, since you seem so excited about it.

It is a site run by one "Gordon Epperly". Gordon Epperly, it appears, is a school bus-driver in Juneau Alaska and, a fortiori, constitutional scholar. He did achieve notoriety among the kook parade after he was sanctioned $2500 by the Ninth Circuit for appealing, among other things, an adverse ruling to his frivolous challenge to the 14th Amendment. My hero.

Since links are fun, here's one for you: Safe Cat.

You know Sky, one thing I think we haven't touched on yet is the Trilateral Commission. Your thoughts?

Warmest regards,

BD

Can it, BD.

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Skyalmian wrote:Q: What are they? A. Every last one of those links is related to the greatest atrocity in United States history, the 14th Amendment of 1868. You, I (but not for long), and everyone else has dual citizenship . . . .

(Snip Unintelligible Gibberish)

Well Sky, the gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train just aint' a' coming, my friend.

I should have figured you out immediately when you said you mourned the loss of the "gold standard". I don't have time to read all of your fascinating links, but I did look at the website you linked as most especially this, since you seem so excited about it.

It is a site run by one "Gordon Epperly". Gordon Epperly, it appears, is a school bus-driver in Juneau Alaska and, a fortiori, constitutional scholar. He did achieve notoriety among the kook parade after he was sanctioned $2500 by the Ninth Circuit for appealing, among other things, an adverse ruling to his frivolous challenge to the 14th Amendment. My hero.

Since links are fun, here's one for you: Safe Cat.

You know Sky, one thing I think we haven't touched on yet is the Trilateral Commission. Your thoughts?

Warmest regards,

BD

Ignorant people always try to make the others (sky) seem like lunatics, quite sad especially because he showed facts and you still believe your safe from the governments ever growing dictatorship.

Ferno wrote:Can it BD.

Yes, it can, Ferno.

BD

*Edit* OH!! You mean "can it", in the sense you think you can command me to be quiet.

That won't be happening Ferno. You'll have to ban me first. Review the thread, take it up with your compadres. If you guys think it appropriate, let fly.

Otherwise, you "can it", my friend.

BD

Behemoth wrote:Ignorant people always try to make the others (sky) seem like lunatics, quite sad especially because he showed facts and you still believe your safe from the governments ever growing dictatorship.

Safe Cat

As always, the DBB continues to amaze me with it's in depth discussions on any topic presented. So here's my 2 cents worth.
Firstly special interests are generally presented as some insidious evil group out to line their pockets in govt. gold. While some do others are aligned with a GROUP of PEOPLE's special interests. Examples are the NRA and AARP. Both groups are large, powerful and funded by individual people (who are more likely to vote than people who do not contribute money to a political action organisation). Both groups not only fight to get laws enacted or repealed, but also have enormous clout in getting certain candidates elected.

Secondly the idea that somehow we are held as chattel to a evil federal dictatorship is absurd. Any nation has certain requirements for it's citizens. America is one of the few countries made up of individual autonimous states. Yes we are a resident of a certain state and must abide by the laws there-in, as we are citizens of a greater enitity called the united states. Would you Sky, have it some other way? Our strength as a nation is precisly because all the states are united under a uber entity.

Lastly, if a dictatorship is looming and the individual counts nought, then why do politicians constantly have polls run to see how they are doing?